Codebase Readiness

Codebase Readiness Assessment

Run an Agent-Ready Codebase Assessment — a scored evaluation of how well a codebase supports autonomous AI agent work, framed against the Stripe benchmark of 1,000+ AI-generated pull requests per week.

Work through the following phases sequentially.

Phase 1: Codebase Reconnaissance

Execute the reconnaissance script to gather project metadata before launching assessment agents. Run directly — no agent needed.

bash scripts/recon.sh

The script is located at scripts/recon.sh relative to this skill's directory.

After reviewing the output, format a Codebase Snapshot:

## Codebase Snapshot: [Project Name]

- **Primary language/framework**: [detected]
- **Language tier**: [statically-typed | dynamically-typed | gradually-typed]
  - Statically-typed: TypeScript, Go, Java, Scala, Rust, C#, Kotlin
  - Dynamically-typed: Ruby, Python (unannotated), JavaScript/Node.js, PHP
  - Gradually-typed: Python with mypy/Pydantic, TypeScript with strict:false
- **Commit count**: [X]
- **Contributors**: [X]
- **Source files**: [X]
- **Test files**: [X] (ratio: X%)
- **CI/CD**: [platform(s) found or none]
- **CLAUDE.md**: [present at path, X lines / absent]
- **Linting config**: [tools found or none]
- **Quality gates**: [copy the `Suggested Gate Maturity Level: Lx -- ...` line from recon output, e.g. "L0 -- no complexity, duplication, or dead-code tooling detected"]
- **README**: [present, X lines / absent]

The Quality gates line is required. recon.sh ends its === QUALITY GATES === section with Suggested Gate Maturity Level: Lx -- <reason>. Copy that level and reason onto the snapshot's Quality gates line. Then read references/quality-gates.md and check the suggestion against the detailed evidence above it (L0 none, L1 report-only, L2 threshold, L3 regression-aware blocking, L4 governed); change the line only when the evidence contradicts the heuristic, and say why. Do not launch the assessment agents with a snapshot that lacks this line -- the agents score only their own slice of the gate evidence and read the level from the snapshot; if it is missing, each agent re-derives it independently and the four dimensions drift apart.

Determine PRIMARY_LANGUAGE and LANGUAGE_TIER from the snapshot. These values drive which language reference file to load.

Supported languages: ruby, python, php, typescript, javascript, go, java, scala, rust.

If the primary language is not in the supported list, inform the user which languages are supported. Offer to proceed with the closest supported language file if the user agrees, or assess dimensions generically without language-specific criteria.

Phase 2: Launch 4 Assessment Agents in Parallel

Prompt Composition

Each agent receives a composed prompt built from reference files:

1. Read the language file — references/languages/{PRIMARY_LANGUAGE}.md
2. Read the dimension files — each agent gets its relevant dimension files from references/dimensions/
3. Read the shared gate reference — references/quality-gates.md goes to the Test & CI, Code Quality, and Architecture agents (each scores a distinct slice; the credit-ownership table prevents double counting)
4. Compose the prompt — role preamble + codebase snapshot + dimension content + quality-gates content + language content + output instructions

Use the Read tool to load each reference file, then include the content inline in the agent prompts. When including the language file, instruct each agent to reference only the sections relevant to its assigned dimensions.

Agent Prompts

Send a single message with 4 Agent tool calls (subagent_type: general-purpose) to launch all agents simultaneously.

Agent 1: Test & CI Agent

Dimension files to read and include:

• references/dimensions/test-foundation.md
• references/dimensions/feedback-loops.md
• references/quality-gates.md (Feedback Loops slice only: actionability, reproducibility, gate tests)

Prompt:

You are a senior engineering consultant specializing in test infrastructure and developer feedback loops. Assess how well this codebase's testing and CI/CD setup supports autonomous AI agent work.

Codebase Snapshot:

[INSERT FULL CODEBASE SNAPSHOT]

LANGUAGE_TIER: [static | dynamic | gradual]
PRIMARY_LANGUAGE: [Ruby | Python | TypeScript | Go | etc.]

## Assessment Instructions

Use the dimension guides and language-specific criteria below to assess two dimensions: **Test Foundation** and **Feedback Loops**. Run the evidence-gathering commands from both the dimension guides and the language file to collect data. Score each dimension 0-100 following the scoring bands, then apply any score modifiers.

Reference only the Test Foundation and Feedback Loops sections from the language file.

### Dimension Guide: Test Foundation

[INSERT CONTENT OF references/dimensions/test-foundation.md]

### Dimension Guide: Feedback Loops

[INSERT CONTENT OF references/dimensions/feedback-loops.md]

### Shared Reference: Regression-Aware Quality Gates

Use the Gate Maturity Level from the snapshot. Score only the Feedback Loops slice from the credit-ownership table (actionability, reproducibility, gate tests). Do not credit tool coverage or blocking behaviour here.

[INSERT CONTENT OF references/quality-gates.md]

### Language-Specific Criteria

[INSERT CONTENT OF references/languages/{PRIMARY_LANGUAGE}.md]

Return the full scored assessment for both dimensions in the output format specified in each dimension guide. Be specific — reference actual files, counts, and statistics.

Agent 2: Documentation Agent

Dimension files to read and include:

• references/dimensions/documentation.md

Prompt:

You are a senior engineering consultant specializing in developer experience and knowledge management. Assess how well this codebase's documentation enables AI agents to work autonomously without constant human clarification.

Codebase Snapshot:

[INSERT FULL CODEBASE SNAPSHOT]

LANGUAGE_TIER: [static | dynamic | gradual]
PRIMARY_LANGUAGE: [Ruby | Python | TypeScript | Go | etc.]

## Assessment Instructions

Use the dimension guide and language-specific criteria below to assess one dimension: **Documentation & Context**. Run the evidence-gathering commands to collect data. Score 0-100 following the scoring bands.

Reference only the Documentation sections from the language file.

### Dimension Guide: Documentation & Context

[INSERT CONTENT OF references/dimensions/documentation.md]

### Language-Specific Criteria

[INSERT CONTENT OF references/languages/{PRIMARY_LANGUAGE}.md]

Return the full scored assessment in the output format specified in the dimension guide. Be specific — reference actual files found. CLAUDE.md is the most important artifact for agent-readiness — give it special attention.

Agent 3: Code Quality Agent

Dimension files to read and include:

• references/dimensions/code-clarity.md
• references/dimensions/consistency.md
• references/quality-gates.md (Code Clarity slice: structural coverage; Consistency slice: lint-debt treatment)

Prompt:

You are a senior engineering consultant specializing in code quality and developer tooling. Assess how navigable and consistent this codebase is for AI agents — agents perform better in codebases with small, focused files and enforced conventions.

Codebase Snapshot:

[INSERT FULL CODEBASE SNAPSHOT]

LANGUAGE_TIER: [static | dynamic | gradual]
PRIMARY_LANGUAGE: [Ruby | Python | TypeScript | Go | etc.]

## Assessment Instructions

Use the dimension guides and language-specific criteria below to assess two dimensions: **Code Clarity** and **Consistency & Conventions**. Run the evidence-gathering commands from both the dimension guides and the language file to collect data. Score each dimension 0-100 following the scoring bands.

Reference only the Code Clarity and Consistency sections from the language file.

### Dimension Guide: Code Clarity

[INSERT CONTENT OF references/dimensions/code-clarity.md]

### Dimension Guide: Consistency & Conventions

[INSERT CONTENT OF references/dimensions/consistency.md]

### Shared Reference: Regression-Aware Quality Gates

Use the Gate Maturity Level from the snapshot. Code Clarity credits which structural properties (complexity, duplication, dead code) are covered and whether each is blocked at L3+. Consistency credits lint/format enforcement and how lint legacy debt is treated. Do not credit CI ergonomics or baseline governance in either dimension.

[INSERT CONTENT OF references/quality-gates.md]

### Language-Specific Criteria

[INSERT CONTENT OF references/languages/{PRIMARY_LANGUAGE}.md]

Return the full scored assessment for both dimensions in the output format specified in each dimension guide. Be specific — reference actual files and line counts.

Agent 4: Architecture Agent

Dimension files to read and include:

• references/dimensions/type-safety.md
• references/dimensions/architecture-clarity.md
• references/dimensions/change-safety.md
• references/quality-gates.md (Change Safety slice only: blocking semantics and baseline governance)

Prompt:

You are a senior engineering consultant specializing in software architecture and developer safety systems. Assess how safely and predictably AI agents can modify this codebase — guard rails vary by language: type systems for statically-typed languages, contract/test systems for dynamically-typed ones.

Codebase Snapshot:

[INSERT FULL CODEBASE SNAPSHOT]

LANGUAGE_TIER: [static | dynamic | gradual]
PRIMARY_LANGUAGE: [Ruby | Python | TypeScript | Go | etc.]

## Assessment Instructions

Use the dimension guides and language-specific criteria below to assess three dimensions: **Type Safety**, **Architecture Clarity**, and **Change Safety**. Run the evidence-gathering commands from both the dimension guides and the language file to collect data. Score each dimension 0-100 following the scoring bands, then apply any score modifiers. Apply the language-appropriate Type Safety rubric based on LANGUAGE_TIER.

Reference only the Type Safety, Architecture, and Change Safety sections from the language file.

### Dimension Guide: Type Safety

[INSERT CONTENT OF references/dimensions/type-safety.md]

### Dimension Guide: Architecture Clarity

[INSERT CONTENT OF references/dimensions/architecture-clarity.md]

### Dimension Guide: Change Safety

[INSERT CONTENT OF references/dimensions/change-safety.md]

### Shared Reference: Regression-Aware Quality Gates

Use the Gate Maturity Level from the snapshot. Score only the Change Safety slice: whether CI blocks new or worsened structural debt (L3+) and how the baseline is governed. Do not credit tool selection or CI ergonomics here.

[INSERT CONTENT OF references/quality-gates.md]

### Language-Specific Criteria

[INSERT CONTENT OF references/languages/{PRIMARY_LANGUAGE}.md]

Return the full scored assessment for all three dimensions in the output format specified in each dimension guide. Be specific — reference actual files, line counts, and git statistics.

Wait for all 4 agents to complete before proceeding.

Phase 3: Score Calculation

Weights are language-adaptive. Select the appropriate table based on LANGUAGE_TIER from the Codebase Snapshot.

Dynamically-typed languages (Ruby, Python, JavaScript, PHP)

In dynamic languages, tests are the type system. Test Foundation carries more weight; Type Safety reflects contracts and interface clarity, not a type checker.

*Type Safety for dynamic languages = contracts (dry-rb, Pydantic), ActiveRecord/Eloquent validations, Form Requests, PHPStan/Larastan, Result pattern consistency. NOT penalized for absence of a compiled type checker.

Statically-typed languages (TypeScript, Go, Java, Scala, Rust)

Overall Score = sum of (agent score × weight)

Score Bands:

• 85-100: Agent-Ready — codebase supports autonomous agent work
• 70-84: Agent-Assisted — agents work well with human oversight
• 50-69: Agent-Supervised — agents need heavy review before merging
• 30-49: Agent-Caution — foundational improvements needed first
• 0-29: Not Agent-Ready — significant investment required before agent work

Phase 4: Report Assembly

Read the report template from assets/report-template.md. Fill in the template using the agent results and the weight table matching the codebase's LANGUAGE_TIER from Phase 3.

Include the Codebase Snapshot in the report exactly as it was given to the agents, Quality gates line included, and repeat that line verbatim in the Quality Gate Maturity section. The snapshot and the section must never disagree.

Important: Use the exact weights from the appropriate Phase 3 table (dynamic vs. static). Do not use hardcoded weights — they differ by language tier.

Output the completed report.

Phase 5: Offer to Save Report

After presenting the report, ask:

"Would you like me to save this assessment as AGENT_READY_ASSESSMENT.md in the project root? It can serve as a baseline for tracking improvements over time and is useful for sharing with your team."

If the user confirms, write the full report to AGENT_READY_ASSESSMENT.md in the current directory.

Phase 6: CI Integration Recommendation

After saving (or if the user declines), if the Gate Maturity Level is L0-L2, mention that the agent-ready plugin's quality-gates mode installs a regression-aware gate (report / check / baseline commands, merge-base-aware CI, reviewed baseline, and tests) using the project's native tools:

Your quality gates scored [Lx]. Run agent-ready in quality-gates mode to install a gate that blocks new or worsened complexity, duplication, and dead code without forcing a cleanup of legacy debt first.

Then mention:

For continuous tracking: Consider adding btar to your CI pipeline. It provides fast, deterministic measurement of your verification infrastructure (type errors, lint violations, test coverage) and can gate PRs when scores regress. This assessment gives a strategic baseline; btar gives daily CI enforcement of the most critical metrics.

npm install -g btar
btar analyze .          # Quick score: types + lint + coverage
btar context generate agents-md  # Auto-generates AGENTS.md with your build/test commands